18
comments:

Anonymous
said...

No. False. The Hyde Ammendment is still in place.

And (naturally) this little "lesson" misses the point in other ways.

Eagles, along with many other animals, sometimes choose to not birth or raise to adulthood some of their offspring for various reasons. That mother eagle may well destroy one of her eggs, or neglect to feed a sickly chick in order to enhance the survival of her other chicks. Sarah Palin's famous "mama grizzlies" are in fact capable of spontaneous abortion if their bodies feel that they don't have enough fat stored up in order to bring a cub to term and raise it properly.

As for humans, if someone attacks a pregnant woman and their fetus dies, that's a crime and its treated as such in our legal system. The choice does not belong to you, outside agent.

More bald-faced lies from lying rightwing think tanks. How idiots can come to "believe" tripe like this is beyond me, but I guess that's why they remain idiots.

And yes: the fetus-worship of these lying "Christains" is disgusting. Once the kid is born, they're essentially on their own. And if they happen to be born into a poor family, esp a poor minority family, then all they're gonna hear is about how lazy they are, what scum they are, how they need to get a job, and how all these so-called "God-fearing Christians" sure 'n hell don't wanna pay one thin dime towards anything to make the kid's life or education work well. You hungry, kid? Too bad. Get used to it.

Ferschitz has stated what really irks me about the anti-choice nuts--that they will be happy to take the responsibility from women about whether to continue a pregnancy but then at the moment of birth that baby is all her responsibility and they don't want to hear any more about it needing food or healthcare or anything. And if it does need those things they will whine that the country is going down the tubes because so many people are dependent on the government.

There are more religious agencies than goverment agencies that take care of charities and other human need. Why? Because any gov't run activity is very inefffective. The majority of pro-choice people are more caring with babies and pre-born babies than what you give them credit for.

There are more religious agencies than goverment agencies that take care of charities and other human need. I agree that the government does not spend much on aid, but more agencies? That sounds... inefficient.

But more seriously, while religion does inspire people to be more charitable, wouldn't it make more sense to form a society that doesn't need to rely on charity? For example, allowing individuals to choose whether they can raise a child properly, rather than trying to force them to? Or not trying to teach people to fear birth control?

There are more religious agencies than goverment agencies that take care of charities and other human need.

There may be more private agencies, but that doesn't mean government isn't doing a lot of the heavy lifting, either through their own agencies or through funding for private agencies.

SNAP alone gives aid to over 45 MILLION people every month, and they do it effectively and efficiently.

Because any gov't run activity is very inefffective.

False. Some are inefficient, but any human endeavor has some level of inefficiency. Government programs provide a reach and economy of scale which, in the right hands, can provide great efficiency. As mentioned before, SNAP is amazingly efficient considering its assigned task. Medicare consistently gets high marks for customer satisfaction an low overhead cost. The Post Office does an amazing job with an incredibly tough mandate.

On the other hand, anyone who thinks the private sector is naturally efficient has never worked in the private sector. Businesses and charities are just as susceptible to inefficiency as any other agency.

The majority of pro-choice people are more caring with babies and pre-born babies than what you give them credit for.

As a pro-choice person, I... agree? I suppose we are more pro baby then we give ourselves credit for?

People who are pro abortion killing, wouldn't have an abortion themselves...many will tell you that. The world has no value for life, when people are more concernd about eagles, dogs and whales than human life! Maybe it's why there's so much hatred too in this world. Break up of the family, killing of the unborn..how can a society continue to survive?

I actually know people who have had abortions and it is a decision I wouldn't put on anybody. These women were too young, conned, or raped and they felt horrible that they had to (rightly) go through this.

And here you are, you sanctimonious assholes, to make them feel even worse. Not because they were wrong, but just because you have a chance to stick it to women. Whom you hate.

People who are pro abortion killing, wouldn't have an abortion themselves

Which is why its called "pro choice". It may not be a choice that you yourself would make, but you still allow others the freedom to make that choice for themselves.

Also, tens of millions of women in this country have had abortions, so there are actually a lot of folks who are both pro choice and who have made that choice themselves.

Break up of the family, killing of the unborn..how can a society continue to survive?

Newsflash: abortion and "broken families" are as old as human existence. They didn't start with the Roe v Wade decision. If you're so worried about these things, might I suggest you embrace a few policies:

Welcome to the Right-Wing Forward Museum

MyRightWingDad.net is a museum dedicated to following the course of American history through a unique lens -- the emails "Red-America" forwards worldwide. Take a look around the archive using the keywords below, and leave a comment or two.

This museum displays unedited, often offensive and untrue material with no endorsement intended by curators or contributors.